In supplying a preface for the handbook of doctrinal theology which is herewith being offered to the theological world, the undersigned is fully aware that he will add nothing to the intrinsic value of the book. Yet in doing so, he is yielding to the repeated requests of the esteemed author, who desired a special introduction presenting a brief survey of doctrinal theology from the time of Schleiermacher to the present day. The supposition is that a foreword of this kind may serve some little purpose as a kind of foil to set off the beauty of a strictly confessional theology as compared with the frequently false, or at least inadequate, presentation found in the great majority of books on dogmatics which have been issued in the century since the death of Schleiermacher, in 1834. It is with this purpose in mind that this short introduction is written.
We must begin, naturally enough, with SCHLEIERMACHER himself (1768-1834), for his influence has dominated the theological thinking of some of the most prominent dogmaticians since his time. The theology of Schleiermacher is largely, if not entirely, subjectivistic, as his chief writings, his Reden ueber die christliche Religion1 (1799) and his Christliche Glaube nach den Grundsaetzen der evangelischen Kirche, im Zusammenhang dargestellt2 (1821-22), clearly show. There can be no doubt that he was governed by certain points in the system of Spinoza, and there is evidence also of his being influenced by the philosophy of Kant. His early theology was clearly pantheistic, the ideas of God and of the universe converging in his presentation, while Christ was to him the archetype of a pure consciousness of God and the mediator of genuine piety. His idea of religion was not that of a knowledge based upon the objective revelation of God, but the consciousness of a person's "absolute dependence" upon God. The "overworld" of Schleiermacher is one which man "intuits" by faith, and faith to him is practically nothing but the immediate selfconsciousness of man's relationship to this "overworld." His concept of sin and guilt is that of mere inadequacy on the part of man. To him Christ is not Himself the object of faith, but merely the archetype of the proper and ideal condition of soul in the case of every believer.
According to Schleiermacher the essence of redemption and reconciliation consists in man's becoming conscious of the eternal unity. His "religion" is thoroughly and entirely a religion of feeling. If a person has reached that state of mind in which he feels that he is in fellowship of life with Christ, regardless of the Gospel revelation, he may be sure of his redemption, of his salvation. Schleiermacher did not permit one Christian doctrine to stand unchallenged, but subverted every fundamental truth, from the inspiration of the Bible to the doctrine of the last things.
Yet Schleiermacher found many adherents in his own day as well as many followers after his death, so that we may even speak of a school which was, and to some extent is, governed by his religious philosophy.
One of the most prominent theologians among the contemporaries of Schleiermacher was DE WETTE (1780-1849), who entered into friendly relations with the older teacher during his sojourn in Berlin. De Wette really denies revelation in the Scriptural sense. His doctrinal system is based upon the Kantian criticism, and he favored the theory of religion as feeling. He is the predecessor of Wellhausen and of the modern higher criticism. He insisted upon the distinction between intelligent, ideal, and esthetic convictions in religious matters, and his insistence upon this intelligent (or intellectual) appreciation of the doctrine of Christ deprived the Gospel of its Christian content, although he usually clothed his dogmatic presentations in the garb of the old orthodox terms.
Another man who was first a pupil and then a friend of Schleiermacher was TWESTEN (1789-1876), who made the principles of his teacher his startingpoint, but went beyond the idea of dogma as presentations of pious conditions of mind in an effort to establish objective truth. When Twesten, in 1835, became Schleiermacher's successor in Berlin, he maintained a mediating position between Marheinecke and Hengstenberg, the former being an exponent of Hegelianism, which excludes redemption and prayer and has no adequate conception of personality and no consciousness of sin, the latter representing a neo-orthodox legalism, although he did splendid service in opposing higher criticism.
Twesten's attitude of mediation became so strongly unionistic that he defended the association of all Christians living in one place at the same time, even without doctrinal agreement.
A third man whom we must name as a faithful disciple of Schleiermacher is SCHWEIZER of Zuerich (1808-1888). He became the exponent of the Reformed type of his teacher's ideas and may be called a predecessor of K. Barth.
His position showed an eminently speculative spirit, and his subjectivism is seen in his insistence that dogmatics must go to the living consciousness of the Christian for its material instead of to the objective certainty of the Word of God alone.
More dangerous to sound confessionalism in many respects than Schleiermacher was ALBRECHT RITSCHL (1822-1889), a man who gained some of his ideas from Kant, others from Schleiermacher, of whom he states that he was the only one since the Reformation to employ the scientific method of proof in theology. He subverts the very foundation of truth by referring to the "precarious medium of the theory of inspiration," and he sought the facts of theology in religious consciousness. He rejected the deity of Christ, merely conceding that Jesus was a religious genius, a religious hero, who had progressed so far in moral and spiritual attainments that to the Christian He has "the value of God." On the atonement of Christ he wrote a large monograph, in which he defends a doctrine which leaves out the cardinal points of the vicarious sacrifice of the Savior. The immortality of the soul is treated in his theology as an indifferent matter. The most objectionable feature of Ritschlianism is its two-facedness. It uses the old theological terms with new meanings; the negative liberal thought is clothed in the old orthodox expressions. While Ritschl retained a semblance of Christian theology, he either changed the Christian doctrine substantially or rejected it outright. His favorite expression is "the kingdom of God," by which he means a general organization or fellowship of men, whose chief distinguishing mark is mutual activity on the basis of love, but without the objective truth of the Gospel.
Among the university teachers of Germany who were strongly influenced by Ritschl (in some cases also by Schleiermacher) the following exerted considerable influence:
Among the American clergymen who were strongly influenced by Ritschlianism are W. A. Brown, C. F. Clarke, G. B. Smith, Wm. De Witt Hyde, G. W. Gladden, Rauschenbusch, King, Sellars, Ward, Vedder, and others, most of whom became the exponents of the social gospel with its destruction of the fundamental truths of Scripture.
In Germany other forces beside the theology of Schleiermacher were at work during the first half of the nineteenth century. The last exponent of formal rationalism was PAULUS of Heidelberg (t 1851);
About this time there was also a revival of Pietism, with a rather romantic coloring, favored by men like Novalia and Tholuck (who, with all his excellencies, could not understand confessional Lutherans), the movement stressing in particular the feeling of sin and of grace, also a supranaturalism and "Biblicism (a dead literalism)," which differed widely from the attitude taken by Fr. Strauss.
In the midst of this turmoil we find certain trends which resulted in three more or less distinct schools of religious or theological thought.
The first of these schools was that which is now known as the extreme liberal school, with LUDW. FEUERBAOH (t 1872) as one of its first great exponents and FERD. CHR. BAUR (1792-1860) as its chief apostle. The latter is the founder of the so-called Tübingen Schule, which became notorious for its attack on practically every tenet of orthodox Biblical introduction and on every Christian doctrine. In his case the statement came true: "A theology that ceases to be a theology of the heart and to make the historical Christ the center of the Christian life will eventually suffer shipwreck with regard to its faith." Yet the evil and detrimental influence of this movement was very great, not only through the work of men like Schwegler, Planck, and others in Germany, but also through the work of British and American theologians, who felt that the false higher criticism introduced by Bauer and carried on by men like Hilgenfeld must contain some elements of truth. These men practically killed the truth in the circles in which they moved.
The liberal Tübingen School found strong opposition in the confessional school centering in Erlangen, but equally powerful in the faculties at Leipzig and Rostock. The most important exponents of this school deserve more than a passing mention because they were strong defenders of the Bible truth and of the Lutheran Confessions, even if they erred in occasional matters. "The Erlangen theology presumed to be genuinely Lutheran, but frequently gave up the principle that Christian theology must be based on Scripture alone." The fact that most of these men were accused of orthodox traditionalism is decidedly in their favor.
One of the most important writers is Wm. Rohnert (t 1902)3, who stands four-square upon Scripture as the one source and norm of all Christian theology, although he is not correct in his doctrine of the election. Other men who might here be mentioned are Hase (Hutterus Redivivus),- otherwise rationalistic,- Schmid (Dogmatik der ev.-luth. Kirche - Lutheran), Hoppe (Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismm - Reformed)4, Schneckenburger (Zur kirchlichen Christologie), Martensen (Dogmatik), who denied that Christ was inspired, Sartorius (Die heilige Liebe), a kenoticist, and Oettingen (Die lutherische Dogmatik), who wrote in the spirit of the Erlangen school.
The third group, or school, is that of the compromise theologians (the Halle school)5, representatives of which were found at practically all theological schools of Prussia. Kattenbusch says that these theologians may well be called the modern Philippists6, whose tendencies were fashioned as a result of the "awakening," or second surge of Pietism, as a consequence of which they combined "Biblicism" with a scientific attitude toward the Bible. In this group we may well place HENGSTENBERG (1802-1869), who was especially prominent in Old Testament exegesis and exerted a great influence through his editorship of the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung. He was opposed to rationalism, but was himself not always trustworthy in his views, his allegorizing in particular often leading him into the errors of the Berleburger Bibel. NITZSCH (1787-1868) is another mediating theologian, whose System der christlichen Lehre was strongly influenced by Schleiermacher's subjectivism, just as he strongly favored the union of Lutherans and Reformed bodies. THOLUCK (1799-1877), with all his apparent originality and undoubted brilliancy, was influenced by Pietism, Moravianism, Schleiermacher, Neander, and even Hegel. He assumed the possibility of errors in the Bible. JUL. MUELLER (1801 to 1878) is notable in particular for his Christliche Lehre von der Suende with its assumption of an intelligible (intellectual) selfdecision and for his vacillating position concerning the Prussian union. LANDERER (1810-1878) tried to mediate between Baur and Beck and constructed Christology along anthropocentric lines. DORNER (1809-1884) is rightly considered one of the most prominent theologians of the nineteenth century, his chief monograph being his Lehre won der Person Christi, in which unfortunately he presented a false kenosis doctrine. His Christology throughout is influenced by philosophy. Other men who may be said to belong to this group are Koestlin (Luthers Theologie), Luecke (Johannes-Kommentar), Gasz (Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik), and especially Rothe (Theologische Ethilc), who takes a very critical position over against the Bible.
The newer form of the Erlangen theology is represented by Ihmels (t 1933), who is not adequate in a number of points in his doctrinal position, particularly because of his denying the sacrificial concept of Christ's obedience unto death; R. Seeberg, who champions the "modern-positive" attitude toward theology, following Frank in many respects, so that he, like him, does not, e. g., quite accept the Gospel as an actual means of grace; J. Kunze (t 1927), who was a faithful disciple of Luthardt; Theodor Kaftan (t 1932), who denied the verbal inspiration; Beth, and others.
Among the more recent theologians of the compromise or mediating school is Lemme (t 1928), a pupil of Dorner, M. Kaehler (t 1912), Cremer (t 1903), Zoeckler (t 1906), known especially for his Handbuch der theologischen Wissenschaften, and Schnedermann. In the more liberal field we have the names of Lipsius (t 1892), Pfleiderer (t 1908), and Luedemann.
German theologians who are at the present time studying the theology of Luther and the Lutheran Confessions with more or less pronounced success are Elert (Morphologie des Luthertums), Sommerlath, Doerne, Jelke, K. Schneider, Koeberle, Holl, Kurtz, and K. Stange.
Meanwhile we also have a relio-historical schoool in Germany and elsewhere, with a fairly strong renascence of the ideas of Schleiermacher and Ritschl. Here we must place De Lagarde (t 1891), Overbeck (t 1905), Ernst Troeltzsch (t 1923), Aulen, and others. Of a more Ritschlian cast are Luettge, Mulert, Stephan, Titius, Wehrung, Wobbermin, and Fabricius, some of whom have also recast some of Schleiermacher's ideas. Girgensohn (t 1925) is often called a confessional theologian, but his Grundriss is not at all adequate on many questions of Christology and soteriology. - Some of the more prominent writers in Stange's Zeitschrift fuer systematische Theologie are P. Althaus, Jr., and E. Hirsch. The influence of A. v. Harnack (t 1930), a follower of Ritschl, and of R. Sohm (t 1917), is generally acknowledged.
At the present time the following men are most prominent in the field of systematic theology in Germany: R. OTTO, whose great monograph DM Heilige passed through twenty-two editions in fifteen years and was translated into seven languages; [F. HEILER](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Heiler#:~:text=Friedrich%20Heiler%20(January%2030%2C%201892,where%20he%20became%20professor%201922.){:target="_blank"}, who regards himself as a spiritual disciple of W. Loehe and is influencing doctrine through his book The Spirit of Worship and his monthly journal Die Hochkirche; KARL HEIM, a very prolific writer, who operates strongly with the element of introspection; KARL BARTH, with his "dialectical theology" (a "combatant theology favoring vehement discussion"), or "theology of crisis," which opposes relativism and represents a pessimism which practically denies the certainty of salvation; Gogarten, Thurneysen, and Brunner, who are closest to Barth, togetherwith O. Piper. Among the Ritschlian eclectics of recent years are Martin Rade and Horst Stephan. The Northern countries have the following theologians: Goeransson, Nygren, Lindroth, Scharling, Madsen, Krarup, Bang, Geismar, Gisle Johnson, Krogh-Touning, and Fredrik Petersen.
In the general field of English theology few outstanding works were produced during the last century. Some of the more prominent writers of England in the field of doctrinal theology were Cobb, Christmas, Stuart, Lyddon, Gore, and Moule, with Sydney Cave as a representative of the extra-Anglican theology in the liberal field. Of American writers in the field tho names of the two Hodges (Presb.), father and son, deserve a prominent place; but the writings of Hopkins (Congr.), Hall, F. J. (Episc.), Shedd (Presb.), Clark (Episc.), Strong (Baptist), Sheldon (Meth. Episc.), Mackenzie (Congr.), and Knudson (Boston Univ.) are often quoted, while the field of social theology has strong exponents, such as Rauschenbusch, Sellars, Brown, De Witt, G. B. Smith, Clarke7, Vedder, and others. This latter group may also be designated as Modernists, especially Brown, with men like Fosdick, Grant, and Cadman as other exponents. These men are really the new rationalists, except that they profess an adherence to the forms, and use the terms, of orthodox Christianity, which they have emptied of their real contents.
Within the ranks of the Lutheran theologians of America not a few books in the field of doctrinal theology have appeared. In Latin we have WALTHER's edition of Baier's Compendium. In the English field we have the names of C. P. KRAUTH (The Conservative Reformation), Weidner (various monographs), Valentine (not soundly Lutheran), Voigt, Jacobs, Gerberding, Lindberg, Hove, Stump, Mellenbruch, and Reu (English and German). The works of HOENECKE (Ev.-Luth. Dogmatik, thetical) and of F. PIEPER (Christliche Dogmatik, discussional) are soundly confessional and orthodox and are written with constant reference to late developments, especially in Germany.
May the book which is herewith presented to the English-speaking theological world serve to arouse and maintain a new interest in the sound doctrine of Jesus Christ, the God-man and Savior of the world I St. Louis, Mo., during Holy Week, 1934.
P. E. KRETZMANN.
Rohnert. This Rohnert died in 1908, not in 1902 as Mueller writes. ↩Hoppe. This Hoppe's' name is Heppe, and he was writing Die Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformierten Kirche writes. ↩